Comedy Movies That Cost More Than You Think

When you think of movie genres that aren't cheap to make, your mind likely darts automatically to animated movies, action thrillers and superhero films. While it's true that those are costly endeavors, another genre that tends to rack up sizeable budgets is big-screen comedies. Despite rarely featuring pricey sights like CGI robots or cities exploding, comedies can still be expensive thanks to a whole slew of factors, including the paychecks needed to get big-name actors to headline your movie. Over the years, plenty of comedies have scored large budgets, but some have ended up with particularly immense price tags. Among those are a pair of sequels to Jim Carrey comedies (both of which ditched Carrey), an infamous Eddie Murphy debacle, and a comedy headlined by one of the most famous actors of the 20th century.

The road to such elaborate budgets varies greatly based on the comedy. Some were always meant to be costly affairs, others saw their budgets spiral out of control due to production problems. Whatever the reason, these comedies ended up costing way more than you might imagine. In the process, they demonstrate that summer blockbusters aren't the only movies that can end up being staggeringly expensive. 

In May 2003, New York magazine reported that the 2004 remake of "The Stepford Wives" was in more than a bit of trouble. Aside from divulging that the film's initial principal photography went two months over schedule, the outlet also reported that a new round of reshoots was ordered following test screenings. The piece also mentioned that there were difficulties in securing the busy Nicole Kidman for the reshoots, not likely to be a cheap prospect.

Considering all of that, it becomes clearer how "The Stepford Wives" wound up with a $100 million budget. The production was always slated to be a costly one, with The New York Times reporting that the project had an initial budget of $90 million. The box office allure of Nicole Kidman as well as the movie being a remake of an old well-known thriller gave Paramount Pictures confidence that "The Stepford Wives" could always be profitable even with a hefty price tag. Unfortunately for its financers, this iteration of "The Stepford Wives" couldn't even clear $100 million worldwide, making that troubled production a lot of fuss for nothing.

Save for Peter Jackson's "King Kong," Jack Black has never headlined a live-action movie that cost over $100 million to make. Well, almost never. The one exception to this came from the 2010 film "Gulliver's Travels." This feature used a $112 million budget to try and replicate the success of fellow 20^th Century Fox family movie "Night at the Museum" from four years prior. Specifically, "Gulliver's Travels," like "Museum," plopped a famous comedian into a family-friendly setting surrounded by CGI co-stars — one that would, hopefully, become a massive Christmastime hit.

Given that "Night at the Museum" cost $110 million to make, it's not inconceivable why "Gulliver's Travels" had a $112 million budget. However, the difference there was that Ben Stiller had already headlined multiple movies (like "Meet the Fockers" and "There's Something About Mary") that would have been profitable even with $100+ million budgets. Black, meanwhile, didn't quite have that box office track record. Using a $112 million budget on "Gulliver's Travels" to realize things like a duel between Black and a gigantic CGI robot just wasn't a wise financial decision, as seen by the film's eventual $232 million worldwide haul. Trying to make the next "Night at the Museum" only resulted in "Gulliver's Travels" becoming the next overly expensive comedy that failed to make a dent at the box office.

Science fiction movies don't come cheap. After all, it takes a lot of money to realize elaborate spaceships or otherworldly aliens. So it was with the Eddie Murphy sci-fi comedy "The Adventures of Pluto Nash," which cost $100 million to make, a price that could be attributed to the inherently expensive nature of this genre as well as Murphy's requisite paycheck. Of course, "Pluto Nash" ended up becoming one of the most notorious bombs in history, so it's no surprise to learn it did not make back its $100 million budget.

In an interview with SlashFilm, "Pluto Nash" director Ron Underwood went into detail about the 2002 film's troubled production, including a lengthy principal photography process that doubtlessly contributed heavily to the large budget. This interview also mentions how early negative internet reactions to test screenings of "Pluto Nash" led to Universal and Castle Rock Entertainment ordering costly reshoots that lasted for two weeks. A review of "Pluto Nash" for the Orlando Sentinel, meanwhile, observed how the cost of the production was further increased by an extended 22-year development process. Before cameras ever started rolling, "Pluto Nash" had spent two decades getting fine-tuned as a screenplay, a process that did not come cheap nor yield successful results. 

Sci-fi movies are usually expensive, sure, but "The Adventures of Pluto Nash" had a clearly troubled production that helped cement it as one of the priciest comedies to ever exist.

The very first "Hangover" movie cost just $35 million to produce. When it came time for a sequel, things would be much more expensive, with the affair costing $80 million. When "The Hangover: Part II" also proved successful, it was only a matter of time before a third installment was unleashed on the public. The question now, though, was where the budget would end up. Turns out, "The Hangover: Part III" would further ratchet up the costs by running up a massive $103 million budget.

Where did all that money go? Primarily to the franchise's three leading men. Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, and Zach Galifianakis all wanted to be properly compensated for another "Hangover" adventure. Eventually, they each scored a $15 million payday for reprising their respective roles. On top of that, Ken Jeong snagged a $5 million salary for playing Leslie Chow again, meaning roughly half the film's budget went towards four actors. The cash needed to get all these actors onboard exceeded the entire budget of the original "Hangover." Once those paychecks were taken care of, money still needed to be spent on the rest of "The Hangover: Part III," which included shooting in lavish locales like Las Vegas. That's how "The Hangover: Part III" ended up costing just over $100 million to produce.

Around 2012, the basic premise of "The Campaign" probably sounded like dynamite to studio executives: Pair up funnyman Will Ferrell with "The Hangover" star Zach Galifianakis in a political-themed comedy released during a Presidential election year. It seemed like a can't miss proposition. The one problem the project faced, though, was that "The Campaign" cost $95 million to make. Despite being an original project, it only cost slightly less than Galifanakis's later comedy vehicle "The Hangover: Part III," which was part of a massive franchise.

It's a bit difficult to tell what specific parts of "The Campaign" brought the budget up so high, especially since the salaries of its leading men have never been officially disclosed. However, a visit to the film's set by Collider divulged that the film did make use of elaborate sets, such as an intricately detailed two story house built on a soundstage. That's certainly the kind of element that can help drive up a film's budget. Whatever caused the budget to escalate, "The Campaign" wasn't as lucrative as Warner Bros. executives likely imagined it could be, as it grossed just $104.9 million globally (including a disastrous $18 million overseas). Sometimes, even the most promising movies don't pan out, especially when they cost as much as "The Campaign."

Once "Bruce Almighty" became the biggest box office smash of Jim Carrey's career, it was inevitable there would be a sequel. However, nobody could have imagined that the follow-up would be as expensive as "Evan Almighty." A comedic take on the Noah's Ark story with Steve Carell at the center, the project was always going to be a costly affair thanks to all the visual effects necessary to execute any story involving a massive boat and an equally enormous flood.

"Evan Almighty" started principal photography with a sizeable $140 million budget. But that cost escalated to $170 million as the production proceeded thanks to, among other issues, the challenges of filming live animals on a movie set as well as executing big set pieces like a gigantic ark making its way through a flooded Washington D.C. Universal Pictures tried to throw cold water on all the bad buzz by telling outlets like Variety that such a budget was reasonable for a film like "Evan Almighty," which was designed to be a blockbuster. However, it was hard to imagine a sequel deprived of Jim Carrey could manage that. In the end, "Evan Almighty" only grossed $174.3 million globally, a meager sum considering this project ended up being the costliest comedy in history.